Anthracite coal, 1929

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
clean and doesn't pollute.

https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1929-02/page/n149

(opposite page--article on radio).

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
> clean and doesn't pollute.

Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.

But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
They are aimed at smog, not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog. That
reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
emit without the smog-control compromises.

If IPCC is right, more efficient vehicles won't help though.

[Quadibloc]

Although that's quite correct in relation to the original meaning of "California
emissions", I thought that California had changed its emission standards
recently to also include carbon-dioxide limits that were the toughest in the
country.

> If IPCC is right, more efficient vehicles won't help though.

Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
electricity from carbon-free sources.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

The current California standards regulate NMOG+NOx, CO, HCHO, and
particulates. Those standards go into effect between 2017 and 2028 on
a phase-in basis and will remain the standards until new standards are
created.
<https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/california-light-duty-emissions/>

California also has a zero emission vehicle program with the objective
of there being 1.5 million zero emission vehicles in service in
California by 2025.

The have had a corporate average CO2 requirement for some time that
until recently had the same target values as the national corporate
average CO2 requirement. The controversy is that the Executive has
decided to slow the implementation of those requirements ("roll back"
isn't precisely correct--the standards currently in effect are not
reduced, what is altered is future standards. California is fighting
this on the basis of a waiver that was granted to them on the basis of
their "special situation" which was smog, not greenhouse emissions,
and the executive is attempting to pull that waiver.

>> If IPCC is right, more efficient vehicles won't help though.
>
>Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>electricity from carbon-free sources.

To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.

[Quadibloc]

Of course, electric cars are expensive.

So I'm willing to compromise.

For people who don't buy new cars:

- people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
buses, a proven technology.

- however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
during World War II.

For people buying new cars:

- instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.

Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.

So the IPCC recommendations _can_ be met (or exceeded) without violating any
laws of physics, or expecting people to be able to afford electric cars, which
is also completely unrealistic. Of course, my solution _also_ is unrealistic in
terms of U.S. politics, as it would require the government to issue a lot of
commands to be obeyed - including some that would ruffle the feathers of certain
vested interests.

Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain group of Americans
viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in securing honest employment,
leading to more of them fulfilling that perception, of course.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>> >electricity from carbon-free sources.
>
>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>
>Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>
>So I'm willing to compromise.
>
>For people who don't buy new cars:
>
>- people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>buses, a proven technology.
>
>- however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
>and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
>during World War II.

Will NOT meet IPCC objectives.

>For people buying new cars:
>
>- instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.

And so we have mass starvation.

>Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.

When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
be produced in lieu of food.

>So the IPCC recommendations _can_ be met (or exceeded) without violating any
>laws of physics, or expecting people to be able to afford electric cars, which
>is also completely unrealistic. Of course, my solution _also_ is unrealistic in
>terms of U.S. politics, as it would require the government to issue a lot of
>commands to be obeyed - including some that would ruffle the feathers of certain
>vested interests.

It is also unrealistic in terms of economics.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:28:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
(quoting me)

> >- instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
> >expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
> >provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.

> And so we have mass starvation.

> >Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
> >alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
> >original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.

> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
> be produced in lieu of food.

Ethyl alcohol has to be produced from stuff like corn, which is food.

Methyl alcohol can be made from grass clippings and sawdust. Which people can't
eat. Or, for that matter, corn husks.

However, that isn't really a refutation of your argument. Trees and grass still
require soil, sunlight, and water to grow, the same things that are used to grow
food crops. While methyl alcohol could be produced to an extent from certain
waste materials, if one needs to produce the massive quantities needed to fuel
every car on the road, one would have to displace some food production.

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:22:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>>
>>Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
>>steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
>>greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
>>coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
>>
>>But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
>>bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
>>clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
>
>This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
>keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
>everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
>They are aimed at smog,

And for very good reason as anyone who lived in Los Angeles from 1958 to 1995
(or Houston today) would attest to.

>> not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
>engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog.

On the other hand, the efficiency of engines has improved by orders
of magnitude over the last five decades, regardless of the emission
standards.

> That
>reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
>emit without the smog-control compromises.

Please provide a citation for this statement.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:17:24 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
> keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
> everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
> They are aimed at smog, not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
> engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog. That
> reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
> emit without the smog-control compromises.

Yep the clear and immediate public health issue (breathing that
shit is bad for you) has been put first since long before anyone cared about
CO2. It has momentum.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[lee.wi...@gmail.com]

Actually, as their ads proclaim, there was worry even
back then about air pollution. But the growth of industry
had priority

In any event, bituminous coal advertised, too:
https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1944-02-19/page/n85

https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1953-02/page/n9

https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1954-01/page/n15

[Peter Flass]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
> access to their neighborhoods.

Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
net carbon-neutral.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

“inexpensive”

--
Pete

[Andreas Kohlbach]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>> >electricity from carbon-free sources.
>
>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>
> Of course, electric cars are expensive.

But many Governments compensate.

> So I'm willing to compromise.
>
> For people who don't buy new cars:
>
> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
> buses, a proven technology.

Good point.

[...]

> For people buying new cars:
>
> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.

The range of EV increases with time. Many people just drive to work or a
grocery store a few miles away and will never experience to "run out of fuel".

For the myth of charging for a long time. With a gasoline car you wait at
the pump until filled up. With an EV you charge it while shopping in a
shopping mall or at night, when you are at sleep. You don't wait to
charge it: if you fill up a normal car it might take some
minutes. Charging an EV takes a few seconds to plug the car into the
charger and remove the cable when done.
--
Andreas

[lee.wi...@gmail.com]

Gentrification is a good thing.

[lee.wi...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
> access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain group of Americans
> viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in securing honest employment,
> leading to more of them fulfilling that perception, of course.

Some people do have that concern and voice objections over transit.

But criminals aren't gonna steal a TV set then lug it to the
bus stop and wait for a bus. Criminals use cars.

Transit access does not adversely impact a neighborhood. If
anything, having a station nearby enhances property values.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:25 -0700
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
> >> be produced in lieu of food.
> >
> > Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
> > catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas,
> > so is net carbon-neutral.
> >
>
> “inexpensive”

Oh good! Energy efficient ? How long does it take the catalyst to
wear out ?

[Scott Lurndal]

No sympathy for those displaced? Where are they to go? They surely can't
afford the new apartments or condos.

[Scott Lurndal]

It would have been helpful if you had added a link to the article.

Note that to convert CO2 to CH4 you need to get the H from somewhere.

There appear to be a number of iron-based catalysts being explored
for this purpose.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Tell that to the people who find themselves priced out of the housing market.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

[Charlie Gibbs]

On 2020-01-13, lee.wi...@gmail.com <lee.wi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:22:42 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7,
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>>
>> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were
>> riding on steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide
>> emissions causing the greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying
>> about the sulfur content of the coal, although they noticed their
>> silver tarnishing.
>>
>> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the
>> cheaper bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot.
>> So anthracite _was_ clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics
>> being applied.
>
> Actually, as their ads proclaim, there was worry even
> back then about air pollution. But the growth of industry
> had priority

"Where there's smoke, there's work!"
-- Firesign Theatre

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> >Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
> >catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
> >net carbon-neutral.

> It would have been helpful if you had added a link to the article.

I remember having read a similar article recently myself. Of course, one reads
so many articles about exciting new advances that never end up reaching the
market, so I can only find it mildly encouraging.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-catalyst-carbon-dioxide-fuel.html

Here we are.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

It's because, in practice, the people living in the run-down houses and
buildings are merely evicted prior to them being torn down, and the new
apartments and condos are made available on the free market according to their
value - meaning that the kind of people who had been evicted need not apply, and
a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.

A very good thing for the other people living in the neighborhood (whether
they're people moving in to other recently constructed new buildings, or
existing residents of the neighborhood in buildings not slated for change, if
any, and note that change can come in the form of a rent increase too), but not
such a good thing for the people of modest means who have little choice as to
where they can find housing, which shrinks even more when this is done.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 03:13:40 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:28:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>(quoting me)
>
>> >- instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>> >expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>> >provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>
>> And so we have mass starvation.
>
>> >Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>> >alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>> >original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
>
>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>> be produced in lieu of food.
>
>Ethyl alcohol has to be produced from stuff like corn, which is food.
>
>Methyl alcohol can be made from grass clippings and sawdust. Which people can't
>eat. Or, for that matter, corn husks.

Maybe it can but it won't.

[Peter Flass]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:25 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>>>> be produced in lieu of food.
>>>
>>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
>>> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas,
>>> so is net carbon-neutral.
>>>
>>
>> “inexpensive”
>
> Oh good! Energy efficient ? How long does it take the catalyst to
> wear out ?
>

Don’t know. If the article said, I missed it. I think the catalyst was some
iron-copper mix.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

It’s a problem. I guess most of them rent, so an increase in property
values doesn’t hurt them. On the other hand, you can’t shut down progress
to keep a run-down neighborhood in stasis.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

That’s it. The H comes from water.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-13, lee.wi...@gmail.com <lee.wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods.
>>>
>>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>>
>> Gentrification is a good thing.
>
> Tell that to the people who find themselves priced out of the housing market.
>

There are always other run-down neighborhoods they can move to.

--
Pete

[J. Clarke]

You own a house in a "bad" neighborhood. Property values are low,
property taxes are low, the government doesn't mess with you. The
people on either side sell out to some wealthy folks who decide to
spruce up their property. Your property value goes up, so your taxes
go up, but your income doesn't go up to match. And your fancy new
neighbors complain to the town about your property so you have to
spend money you don't have doing maintenance on it to get it to the
standard that _they_ want. And ultimately you end up losing it
because you can't afford it anymore.

That's gentrification in a nutshell.

[J. Clarke]

My then girlfriend and I used to drive from Columbus, Ohio to
Jacksonville Florida in 24 hours. We'd trade off sleeping and driving
so that neither of us was driving exhausted. If we had to charge an
EV for a couple of hours every 300 miles that time would have been
much longer.

EVs are fine for commuter cars but they're a pain in the butt for
travel.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:23 -0800 (PST), lee.wi...@gmail.com
wrote:

No, they're going to steal you TV, throw it in the back of your car,
steal your car, drive off and sell both.

[J. Clarke]

Of course you can. You can have red-light districts too instead of
constantly moving the crime from one place to another.

[Charlie Gibbs]

On 2020-01-14, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:56:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods.
>>
>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>
> It's because, in practice, the people living in the run-down houses and
> buildings are merely evicted prior to them being torn down, and the new
> apartments and condos are made available on the free market according to
> their value - meaning that the kind of people who had been evicted need
> not apply,

Here in Vancouver this is such a common thing that we've coined a portmanteau:
"renoviction". Note that it's not necessary to tear down the building -
renovations are enough.

> and a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.

s/a better class of/richer/

Many of these people are part of the Hong Kong diaspora. Now we're trying
to figure out how to deal with the resulting flood of absentee owners and
landlords. After all, housing is first and foremost an investment, not a
place to live.

My advice to young people around here is to get the hell out of the
Lower Mainland. This might make it hard for the beautiful people
to find grunts to clean their hotel rooms. Boo-hoo.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Also, pickpockets and purse snatchers hang around transit stations,
ready to hop on the next train after grabbing your stuff. (Or hop
off after picking your pocket on the train.)

My favourite story (it actually happened here) was of the burglar
who broke into a house, stole a TV and an expensive leather jacket,
and called a cab to haul the stuff away. The victim, on waking up
and discovering the crime, couldn't find his cordless phone to report
it, so he hit the "find me" button and tracked the beeping to a bush
outside where the burgler had tossed the phone after calling the cab.
The victim hit the redial button, got the cab company, and then went
to the police, who got a court order to get the cab's records. The
cab driver - who recalled having to load a large object into the
trunk - took the police to the cab's destination the night before.
The burglar was out, but his girlfriend answered the door, and there
was the stolen TV. The girlfriend said the perp had gone down to
the parole office, and that's where they found him - wearing the
leather jacket.

Sometimes the good guy wins.

[Peter Flass]

Alternatively, your property values go up so you sell at a nice profit and
move to a cheaper neighborhood.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Or 10 hours a day New York to the West Coast, about 600 miles/day.

>
> EVs are fine for commuter cars but they're a pain in the butt for
> travel.
>

--
Pete

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:37:59 -0700, Peter Flass

So where is this "cheaper neighborhood" in Silicon Valley?

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:28:07 -0700

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:25 -0700
> > Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
> >>>> be produced in lieu of food.
> >>>
> >>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an
> >>> expensive catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic
> >>> natural gas, so is net carbon-neutral.
> >>>
> >>
> >> “inexpensive”
> >
> > Oh good! Energy efficient ? How long does it take the catalyst
> > to wear out ?
> >
>
> Don’t know. If the article said, I missed it. I think the catalyst was
> some iron-copper mix.

Figures, those are the kind of important details that tend to get
left out of announcements like that and tend to be the reason you never
hear of them again.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:13:40 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So where is this "cheaper neighborhood" in Silicon Valley?

Somewhere around 1960 I think.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Much work remains, however, before average consumer will be able to
purchase products based on such technologies.


(needs Ruthenium; this is easily found in Platinum mines.)


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:28:10 GMT, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

and produces life-giving Oxygen!

I feel there's a cycle here; and it'll need Energy putting in.
I invented this when I was 13, for underwater living.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 14 Jan 2020 10:48:38 GMT
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2020-01-14, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> > Also, pickpockets and purse snatchers hang around transit stations,
> > ready to hop on the next train after grabbing your stuff. (Or hop
> > off after picking your pocket on the train.)
>

> Seriously? I commuted daily into London, by train for over 20 years. In
> that time the only people who robbed me were the train company. (Or
> were you being facetious?)

I've seen it on the train from Schipol to Amsterdam, just as we
were pulling into Sloterdijk someone fumbled and dropped some cash on the
floor, several people helped them pick it up and they got off just in time
before the doors closed. Just after the doors closed came the cry of "My
bags are gone". The dropped money was, of course, a distraction that worked
perfectly, nobody noticed the bags being casually picked up and taken off
the train.

This happens often enough that the Dutch police regularly run
operations against it.

[Peter Flass]

San Bernadino? Cali is nuts,I was thinking of a normal place, i.e. anyplace
else I have ever lived or had experience of.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-14, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>> On 2020-01-14, J Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:23 -0800 (PST), lee.wi...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain
>>>>> group of Americans viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in
>>>>> securing honest employment, leading to more of them fulfilling that
>>>>> perception, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Some people do have that concern and voice objections over transit.
>

> They're idiots.

>
>>>>
>>>> But criminals aren't gonna steal a TV set then lug it to the
>>>> bus stop and wait for a bus. Criminals use cars.
>>>>
>>>> Transit access does not adversely impact a neighborhood. If
>>>> anything, having a station nearby enhances property values.
>>>
>>> No, they're going to steal you TV, throw it in the back of your car,
>>> steal your car, drive off and sell both.
>>
>> Also, pickpockets and purse snatchers hang around transit stations,
>> ready to hop on the next train after grabbing your stuff. (Or hop
>> off after picking your pocket on the train.)
>

> Seriously? I commuted daily into London, by train for over 20 years. In
> that time the only people who robbed me were the train company. (Or
> were you being facetious?)
>

Naturally there is crime, like everywhere else. Every time something
happens on or around the light rail my daughter says “see, that’s why I’d
never ride it.” In New York women get groped on the subways and there are
pickpockets, stabbings, people get pushed in front of trains, etc., but I
would suspect anywhere in New York is pretty much the same.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

They say solar, but any kind of electricity works.

--
Pete

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

For sure there's a cycle:

CO2 + 4H2O <==> CH4 + 2O2

The reaction requires energy (a lot of it) to drive it to the right
and yields energy going the other way. The catalyst only serves to make it
possible to run the reaction to the right because it *really* wants to go
to the left and shed that energy.

[Dan Espen]

I rode the NYC subways for at least 30 years.

Once I had to throw a guy off a train for him making advances on a young
girl. Another time I showed a guy my knife when he was rubbing my leg.
So, 2 incidents in 30 years. It's not Clockwork Orange in the subways,
most people are decent. I got a lot of thanks for throwing the guy off
the train. Nobody but the perpetrator saw the knife.

--
Dan Espen

[JimP]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:08:19 -0800 (PST), lee.wi...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>> > transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>> > access to their neighborhoods.
>>

>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>

>Gentrification is a good thing.

Unless you wind up homeless due to it.

--
Jim

[Scott Lurndal]

You're joking, right?

[Scott Lurndal]

You make it sound so simple. Note that the vast majority are renters, not
owners.

Note also that people generally make connections, friends etc in a neighborhood
and you are _forcing_ them to move. Not kind.

[Scott Lurndal]

About a two-hour (each way) commute. Think tracy, stockton, patterson, los banos, et. al.

[Scott Lurndal]

No concept of geography, I see. San Bernadino is 6+ hours by car
from silicon valley.

It's spelled "California", thank you.

And while California produces the vast majority of Almonds and walnuts
to the rest of the country, to characterize the state as "nuts" is
pretty fucking stupid.

[Scott Lurndal]

To you, perhaps. To the majority of EV owners, perhaps not.

[Scott Lurndal]

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> My then girlfriend and I used to drive from Columbus, Ohio to
>> Jacksonville Florida in 24 hours. We'd trade off sleeping and driving
>> so that neither of us was driving exhausted. If we had to charge an
>> EV for a couple of hours every 300 miles that time would have been
>> much longer.
>
>Or 10 hours a day New York to the West Coast, about 600 miles/day.
>

For the one time in your life that you make that drive, rent a car.

[Scott]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:01:05 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>And while California produces the vast majority of Almonds and walnuts
>to the rest of the country, to characterize the state as "nuts" is
>pretty fucking stupid.

Apropos of nothing, I was pondering California's status as an
agricultural powerhouse and one of the few states that pays more in
federal taxes than it receives in federal benefits. Points of pride,
surely.

I then went on to ponder what California would look like without the
substantial inputs of electricity and clean water that it recieves
from neighboring areas.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Indeed, or take a train/plane and rent a car at the other end.

[Peter Flass]

Thst was a joke. I realize there is no place nearby.

>
> It's spelled "California", thank you.
>
> And while California produces the vast majority of Almonds and walnuts
> to the rest of the country, to characterize the state as "nuts" is
> pretty fucking stupid.
>

Besides the housing shortage your taxes are in the stratosphere, your cost
of living is high, gas prices are crazy, your traffic is out of control,
people are building houses where no one should build, so they’re
fire-prone.

I thought of California when I retired, but housing in Phoenix is about
half of what it is in California, and anyplace in the valley is less than
an hour commute from anywhere else, plus we don’t have earthquakes or major
fires.


--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Did that several times, lost count, fun drive.

--
Pete

[Charlie Gibbs]

That's when the Powers That Be bring out terms like "collateral damage"
to paper it over, if their noble-sounding speeches aren't doing the job.
(Note that "the greatest good for the greatest number" usually translates
to "the greatest good for a number of the great".)

When making an omelet, the opinion of the eggs is seldom considered.

[Charlie Gibbs]

On 2020-01-14, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2020-01-14, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Also, pickpockets and purse snatchers hang around transit stations,
>> ready to hop on the next train after grabbing your stuff. (Or hop
>> off after picking your pocket on the train.)
>
> Seriously? I commuted daily into London, by train for over 20 years. In
> that time the only people who robbed me were the train company. (Or
> were you being facetious?)

Well, maybe overstating a bit. I don't commute by transit, although I
do take it downtown for events from time to time. I've had no problems,
although I've occasionally seen someone being subdued by security
personnel. As with anything else, there are few problems if you keep
your wits about you. Which brings up an interesting thought: with so
many people submerged in their phones these days, would this not make
them easier targets? I wonder whether there are statistics on this.

[Scott Lurndal]

LA gets half of its water from the Colorado River, which does
flow into California naturally, so that doesn't count as
an import (see recent water rights supreme court case between
Fl and Ga for how complicated interstate water rights can be).

The rest of california gets water by saving the winter rains and spring runoff
in reservoirs and aquafers.

California gets about 20% of its electricity from other states, mainly
from Washington (hydro and wind). The rest is generated within the
state.

[Scott Lurndal]

It's a big state. You're describing small portions of it, and your
rhetoric is designed to denigrate.

>
>I thought of California when I retired, but housing in Phoenix is about
>half of what it is in California,

I bought mine 27 years ago. You can find Phoenix prices in many parts of the
state, particularly in the north.

and anyplace in the valley is less than
>an hour commute from anywhere else,

60 minutes to the city, 40 minutes to Santa Cruz, 60 minutes
to Monterey/Carmel, 60 minutes to Pinnacles National Park,
3 hours to Yosemite valley floor, 4 hours to tahoe, Kings
Canyon/Sequoia. five hours to LA.



? plus we don’t have earthquakes or major
>fires.

California is a a BIG state. There have been three major
Earthquakes since I moved here (1987 Wittier Narrows, 1989 Loma Prieta,
1992 Northridge) and a handful of smaller ones (e.g. Napa in 20??).

None of which caused any problems (aside from travel difficulties
when poorly built overpasses failed) for the vast majority of residents.

Fires get a lot of press, but on the scale of the state, affect a very
small area.

But please, feel free to stay away.

Like the old license plate frame states:

"Welcome to California, now go home". :-)

[Mike Spencer]

Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2020-01-14, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> and a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.
>
> s/a better class of/richer/

Just so.

> Many of these people are part of the Hong Kong diaspora. Now we're
> trying to figure out how to deal with the resulting flood of
> absentee owners and landlords. After all, housing is first and
> foremost an investment, not a place to live.

For those absentee owners, yes. For ordinary people -- those lacking
surplus funds for discretionary investment -- it's a myth. The myth
has been remarkably realized for people buying housing from circa 1940
to 1970. Plenty of jobs, high wages/salaries, moderate interest. If
you bought a nice house in, say, 1955, you may have been able to sell
it for what appeared to be a windfall, despite inflation, when you
retired in 2000.

If a 20-something couple can even *get* a mortgage today, perhaps with
big student debt still over their heads, they're in a very different
kettle of sharks/economic, political and financial environment. But
that conventional middle-class bungalo (or now condo) is touted to
them as an "investment". So they both have to work full time or more
to keep up with the mortgage, insurance etc. when jobs and the
financial world are unstable. The phrase "smoke & mirrors" comes to
mind.

> My advice to young people around here [BC, Canada] is to get the
> hell out of the Lower Mainland. This might make it hard for the
> beautiful people to find grunts to clean their hotel rooms.
> Boo-hoo.

My advice, not entirely tongue in cheek, is to live in a shack, live
in a tent, live in a cardboard box before putting every penny
^H^H^H^H^H (sorry, we don't have pennies any more) nickel available
into what passes for a house/condo and getting mired in the tarbaby of
mortgage, insurance, building codes, condo agreement, property taxes
and all related commitments.

That would probably be consonant with, a generalization of, "getting out
of the Lower Mainland". :-)

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

[Mike Spencer]

I've not been following it closely but from intermittent and
fragmentary bits I've seen go by, California is doomed unless,
invoking the controversial US doctrine of "continental water" and as
yet non-existent technology, someone can arrange to pipe the contents
of Lake Winnipeg directly into the Central Valley. IIRC, Lake
Winnipeg is no longer as pristine pure as it once was but far better
than no water at all.

Nor is California unique in that respect although it may be the most
prominent example. Norther Texas, f'rgzample, depends on pumping water
out of a rapidly retreating paleoaquifer and may soon need Lake
Winnipeg too.

[Peter Flass]

Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2020-01-14, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> and a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.
>>
>> s/a better class of/richer/
>
> Just so.
>
>> Many of these people are part of the Hong Kong diaspora. Now we're
>> trying to figure out how to deal with the resulting flood of
>> absentee owners and landlords. After all, housing is first and
>> foremost an investment, not a place to live.
>
> For those absentee owners, yes. For ordinary people -- those lacking
> surplus funds for discretionary investment -- it's a myth. The myth
> has been remarkably realized for people buying housing from circa 1940
> to 1970. Plenty of jobs, high wages/salaries, moderate interest. If
> you bought a nice house in, say, 1955, you may have been able to sell
> it for what appeared to be a windfall, despite inflation, when you
> retired in 2000.

It’s mostly a myth. We bought our house in 1984 and sold last year for
twice what we originally paid. No mortgage, but a small home equity loan.
Spent a few thousand to fix the place up to sell (electrical, mould, paint,
etc.) . Spent all but about 15,000 on our new condo, paid a bunch in moving
costs, and a lot of the profit went to do work on the new place and buy
furniture. Of course, we own the new place free and clear.

>
> If a 20-something couple can even *get* a mortgage today, perhaps with
> big student debt still over their heads, they're in a very different
> kettle of sharks/economic, political and financial environment. But
> that conventional middle-class bungalo (or now condo) is touted to
> them as an "investment". So they both have to work full time or more
> to keep up with the mortgage, insurance etc. when jobs and the
> financial world are unstable. The phrase "smoke & mirrors" comes to
> mind.

I don’t know, but owning seems more secure than renting to me, where the
landlord can arbitrarily raise the rent or sell the place out from under
you.

>
>> My advice to young people around here [BC, Canada] is to get the
>> hell out of the Lower Mainland. This might make it hard for the
>> beautiful people to find grunts to clean their hotel rooms.
>> Boo-hoo.

There are lots of less-expensive places to live, even in California, as
Scott points out. It seems like everyone always wants to live in the same
places.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2020-01-14, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> and a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.
>>>
>>> s/a better class of/richer/
>>
>> Just so.
>>
>>> Many of these people are part of the Hong Kong diaspora. Now we're
>>> trying to figure out how to deal with the resulting flood of
>>> absentee owners and landlords. After all, housing is first and
>>> foremost an investment, not a place to live.
>>
>> For those absentee owners, yes. For ordinary people -- those lacking
>> surplus funds for discretionary investment -- it's a myth. The myth
>> has been remarkably realized for people buying housing from circa 1940
>> to 1970. Plenty of jobs, high wages/salaries, moderate interest. If
>> you bought a nice house in, say, 1955, you may have been able to sell
>> it for what appeared to be a windfall, despite inflation, when you
>> retired in 2000.
>
> It’s mostly a myth. We bought our house in 1984 and sold last year for
> twice what we originally paid. No mortgage, but a small home equity loan.
> Spent a few thousand to fix the place up to sell (electrical, mould, paint,
> etc.) . Spent all but about 15,000 on our new condo, paid a bunch in moving
> costs, and a lot of the profit went to do work on the new place and buy
> furniture. Of course, we own the new place free and clear.

Actually we sold the old place for triple what we paid for it.

--
Pete

[Dan Espen]

Lake Winnipeg is way too far off.
The Columbia River has been discussed more than once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_interstate_water_pipelines_to_California

Although really expensive, I'd rate it as feasible.

If only we could move the perfect climate of LA north to where the water is...

--
Dan Espen

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 6:04:28 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:

> There are lots of less-expensive places to live, even in California, as
> Scott points out. It seems like everyone always wants to live in the same
> places.

Well, of course people want to live where the jobs are. Living where one can't
find a job, one would not be able to afford inexpensive housing or anything else.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Opening a portal between the fires of Australia and the winter of Canada would
be nice, but we don't have the technology.

The rivers I'd like to send to California are the Mississippi and the
Atchafalaya, as that would also solve a flooding problem, but that's clearly
impossible, what with the Rocky Mountains being in the way.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Like the old license plate frame states:

> "Welcome to California, now go home". :-)

Well, California does have an earthquake problem.

But I thought it was Oregon that was less than welcoming to newcomers.

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Like the old license plate frame states:
>
>> "Welcome to California, now go home". :-)
>
>Well, California does have an earthquake problem.

As does the entire pacific rim (including BC), the midwest and
the east coast, albeit the later two are less common, yet the
largest continental earthquake was centered in New Madrid, Misery.

>
>But I thought it was Oregon that was less than welcoming to newcomers.

The license plate frame (and similar bumper sticker) was common in
the 1980s. Haven't seen it for decades now.

[Scott Lurndal]

Comps for mine show a 5-fold increase in value over 27 years.

I'd certainly miss the live music scene, live sports (49ers, Giants, A's, Sharks,
Warriors), the beach, the mountains, year around hiking,
year-around softball leagues (although many of the local fields are being
converted to dual-use soccer/softball/little league), drives through the Napa valley,
Yosemite, Tahoe, et alia if I were to leave the state.

[Scott Lurndal]

The obvious solutions are desalination, conservation and capping the state
population. San Diego already uses the first, the entire state has saved
a tremendous amount by the second and the third isn't very likely I'm afraid.

But, in fact, the state has plenty of water most years (we started this year
at well over 100% of average reservoir storage). Consecutive drought years
have an impact, and we waste a lot of water growing cotton and rice in the central
valley.

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/reportapp/javareports?name=RES

[Charlie Gibbs]

On 2020-01-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2020-01-14, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.
>>>
>>> s/a better class of/richer/
>>
>> Just so.
>>
>>> Many of these people are part of the Hong Kong diaspora. Now we're
>>> trying to figure out how to deal with the resulting flood of
>>> absentee owners and landlords. After all, housing is first and
>>> foremost an investment, not a place to live.
>>
>> For those absentee owners, yes. For ordinary people -- those lacking
>> surplus funds for discretionary investment -- it's a myth. The myth
>> has been remarkably realized for people buying housing from circa 1940
>> to 1970. Plenty of jobs, high wages/salaries, moderate interest. If
>> you bought a nice house in, say, 1955, you may have been able to sell
>> it for what appeared to be a windfall, despite inflation, when you
>> retired in 2000.
>
> It’s mostly a myth. We bought our house in 1984 and sold last year for
> twice what we originally paid. No mortgage, but a small home equity loan.
> Spent a few thousand to fix the place up to sell (electrical, mould, paint,
> etc.) . Spent all but about 15,000 on our new condo, paid a bunch in moving
> costs, and a lot of the profit went to do work on the new place and buy
> furniture. Of course, we own the new place free and clear.

We bought our house in 1988. It's currently worth ten times what we
paid (oops, make that nine with the latest market correction, which
has the investors freaking out). We still have a mortgage left, but
we're in no hurry to move, and if and when we do, it's small enough
that we'll kill it with proceeds from the sale and have enough left
over to buy a condo free and clear.

We realize full well that it was a stroke of luck that we were born
at the right time.

>> If a 20-something couple can even *get* a mortgage today, perhaps with
>> big student debt still over their heads, they're in a very different
>> kettle of sharks/economic, political and financial environment. But
>> that conventional middle-class bungalo (or now condo) is touted to
>> them as an "investment". So they both have to work full time or more
>> to keep up with the mortgage, insurance etc. when jobs and the
>> financial world are unstable. The phrase "smoke & mirrors" comes to
>> mind.
>
> I don’t know, but owning seems more secure than renting to me, where the
> landlord can arbitrarily raise the rent or sell the place out from under
> you.

True. But if prices have risen to where you don't stand a chance of
getting a toe into the market, you're screwed. And even for owners,
the city can arbitrarily raise taxes (7% this year in Vancouver) -
and sell the place out from under you when you can't pay.

>>> My advice to young people around here [BC, Canada] is to get the
>>> hell out of the Lower Mainland. This might make it hard for the
>>> beautiful people to find grunts to clean their hotel rooms.
>>> Boo-hoo.
>
> There are lots of less-expensive places to live, even in California, as
> Scott points out. It seems like everyone always wants to live in the same
> places.

I find it ironic, after all the talk in the '80s about the "global village",
that people are cramming themselves into the big cities more tightly than
ever. Remember when technology was going to make that unnecessary?

[JimP]

On 14 Jan 2020 19:03:27 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2020-01-14, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-14, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, pickpockets and purse snatchers hang around transit stations,
>>> ready to hop on the next train after grabbing your stuff. (Or hop
>>> off after picking your pocket on the train.)
>>
>> Seriously? I commuted daily into London, by train for over 20 years. In
>> that time the only people who robbed me were the train company. (Or
>> were you being facetious?)
>
>Well, maybe overstating a bit. I don't commute by transit, although I
>do take it downtown for events from time to time. I've had no problems,
>although I've occasionally seen someone being subdued by security
>personnel. As with anything else, there are few problems if you keep
>your wits about you. Which brings up an interesting thought: with so
>many people submerged in their phones these days, would this not make
>them easier targets? I wonder whether there are statistics on this.

Saw a video on the news a few years ago. Woman so engrossed in her
cell phone she walked into the shopping mall fountain and fell in.

The mall put the video up to show people to be more careful. She sued
the mall. She looked to be in her 30s.

--
Jim

[JimP]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:47:33 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)

About 30 years ago I watched a documentary on the Colorado River. They
talked about water rights. The river's flow was checked in the early
1930s. Turns out those were the wettest years on that river in 500
years.

The states that draw water from that river refuse to allow a redoing
of the river flow. Apparently they want to draw water that doesn't
exist anymore.

--
Jim

[Alfred Falk]

Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote in
news:875zhdm...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere:

>
> nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:01:05 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And while California produces the vast majority of Almonds and
>>> walnuts to the rest of the country, to characterize the state as
>>> "nuts" is pretty fucking stupid.
>>
>> Apropos of nothing, I was pondering California's status as an
>> agricultural powerhouse and one of the few states that pays more in
>> federal taxes than it receives in federal benefits. Points of pride,
>> surely.
>>
>> I then went on to ponder what California would look like without the
>> substantial inputs of electricity and clean water that it recieves
>> from neighboring areas.
>
> I've not been following it closely but from intermittent and
> fragmentary bits I've seen go by, California is doomed unless,
> invoking the controversial US doctrine of "continental water" and as
> yet non-existent technology, someone can arrange to pipe the contents
> of Lake Winnipeg directly into the Central Valley. IIRC, Lake
> Winnipeg is no longer as pristine pure as it once was but far better
> than no water at all.

Aside from general absurdity... "Winnipeg" is usually translated as "murky
water". Turbidity has always been high. Modern pollutants from urban areas
on main tributaries to the south haven't helped. And, while the surface
area is large, there isn't all that much water there. It's not very deep.
(< 40 feet mean depth.)

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:33:10 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> The obvious solutions are desalination, conservation and capping the state
> population. San Diego already uses the first, the entire state has saved
> a tremendous amount by the second and the third isn't very likely I'm afraid.

Desalination is energy-intensive. Since California has problems paying for the
electiricity it already uses, and it sits on so many fault lines that building
more nuclear power plants there is not a good idea, I can't expect it to expand
much.

And capping the state population would require repealing the Fourteenth
Amendment, along with other equally impossible things. Places like China can try
a one-child policy.

John Savard

[Charlie Gibbs]

She needs this service:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY

[Charlie Gibbs]

On 2020-01-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> And capping the state population would require repealing the Fourteenth
> Amendment, along with other equally impossible things. Places like China
> can try a one-child policy.

Yes, there were some unintended consequences there. Still, it would be
better if we could find some way to slow population growth before Mother
Nature does it for us.

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-- Edward Abbey

[Scott Lurndal]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:33:10 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> The obvious solutions are desalination, conservation and capping the state
>> population. San Diego already uses the first, the entire state has saved
>> a tremendous amount by the second and the third isn't very likely I'm afraid.
>
>Desalination is energy-intensive.

There is, of course, active research into more efficient methods of
desalination. California does have a lot of insolation that can
be leveraged if necessary.

> Since California has problems paying for the
>electiricity it already uses

Say what? Where did you get that flawed idea?

>, and it sits on so many fault lines that building
>more nuclear power plants there is not a good idea

That's also silly. Large portions of California
aren't near major fault lines, and one can certainly
build nuclear power plants (see San Onofre, Diablo Canyon (now in
decommissioning - for economic reasons)).

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> > Since California has problems paying for the
> >electiricity it already uses

> Say what? Where did you get that flawed idea?

You have a governor who, in addition to being a bodybuilder and a former actor,
passed legislation to prevent out-of-state utilities from responding to the fact
that California utilities were in arrears - although there is a claim that this
was a response to a corrupt takeover attempt.

John Savard

[Peter Flass]

Yup, live where you want and telecommute to your job.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

The states involved just negotiated a compact covering who gets cut off in
case of a water shortage.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

I think the plan was to get water from several Alaskan rivers, thus
avoiding the charge that we’d be stealing Canada’s water.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> And capping the state population would require repealing the Fourteenth
>> Amendment, along with other equally impossible things. Places like China
>> can try a one-child policy.
>
> Yes, there were some unintended consequences there. Still, it would be
> better if we could find some way to slow population growth before Mother
> Nature does it for us.
>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
>

Now China has a problem with declining birthrates. Apparently people got so
used to the one-child policy they don’t want more than one kid.

--
Pete

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 12:27:57 PM UTC-7, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-01-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> > And capping the state population would require repealing the Fourteenth
> > Amendment, along with other equally impossible things. Places like China
> > can try a one-child policy.

> Yes, there were some unintended consequences there. Still, it would be
> better if we could find some way to slow population growth before Mother
> Nature does it for us.

I quite agree.

In one sense, we already have one. The Pill has been invented, so there exists
an effective means of contraception that isn't messy or inconvenient. Diaphragms
and IUDs can also take honorable mention.

The condom, of course, requires careful attention to lubrication, and involves
certain issues of timing, which is not to say it isn't useful as well.

But the question isn't whether or not people _could_ limit the size of their
families, it's whether or not they would want to.

The "demographic transition" appears to suggest that this is not a problem.

All we would need to do is fix things so that:

- everybody in the world lives at a standard comparable to that of the average
white American in 1960 at the least,

- everybody in the world lives under political rule such that they don't feel
threatened as a cultural, religious, ethnic, or linguistic group from neighbors
within the same jurisdiction

and family size would shrink just fine.

The trouble is that the second point would require an immense amount of military
force to achieve that no one has an interest in applying, and the first point
would lead to a severe effective level of over-population in terms of resource
consumption.

And I'm not even sure that the "demographic transition" will save us. There are
basic human desires that lead people to want children, which can sometimes be
offset by economic pressures - but how people with different experiences and
from different cultures will react to a certain economic situation may vary.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 3:03:42 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:

> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > About 30 years ago I watched a documentary on the Colorado River. They
> > talked about water rights. The river's flow was checked in the early
> > 1930s. Turns out those were the wettest years on that river in 500
> > years.

> > The states that draw water from that river refuse to allow a redoing
> > of the river flow. Apparently they want to draw water that doesn't
> > exist anymore.

> The states involved just negotiated a compact covering who gets cut off in
> case of a water shortage.

And so this means they are vastly more sensible than he gives them credit for?

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 3:03:46 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:

> Now China has a problem with declining birthrates. Apparently people got so
> used to the one-child policy they don’t want more than one kid.

If they're also willing to put up with that kid being a daughter, great.

If not... "I told you so". (I may not be available to say it after a global
thermonuclear war with China.)

John Savard

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:03:36 -0700
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> > I find it ironic, after all the talk in the '80s about the "global
> > village", that people are cramming themselves into the big cities more
> > tightly than ever. Remember when technology was going to make that
> > unnecessary?

It is - but few seem to realise it.

> Yup, live where you want and telecommute to your job.

I do! I live in North Kerry, my dev box is a virtual machine in
Seattle, the HR team is based in Cork, the rest of my team is spread
between two or three US States, Russia, India and China (there's nobody else
on the team in Ireland). Work's laptop, RSA keyfob and an internet
connection puts me in the office - desk phone and all. This is the third
employer I've worked from home with. For all practical purposes timezone
difference is more of a barrier than distance, and that can be worked to
advantage.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[J. Clarke]

I'm kind of a dinosaur--sometimes I'm the only person in my department
that is actually physically present in the office.

[J. Clarke]

Sounds like a job for the Boring Company.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:02:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:33:10 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> The obvious solutions are desalination, conservation and capping the state
>> population. San Diego already uses the first, the entire state has saved
>> a tremendous amount by the second and the third isn't very likely I'm afraid.
>
>Desalination is energy-intensive. Since California has problems paying for the
>electiricity it already uses, and it sits on so many fault lines that building
>more nuclear power plants there is not a good idea, I can't expect it to expand
>much.

Most of California's problems are its own doing.

[J. Clarke]

?? When was Gavin Newsom a bodybuilder or actor?

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 5:58:42 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> ?? When was Gavin Newsom a bodybuilder or actor?

You had such a governor, then. But perhaps he'll be back.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

If Wayne Boring had the cartoon character Leonardo's pencil, he could draw a
picture that would come to life of the *real* solution to the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnheB_ETwfo
...this character _looks_ like the Leonardo I'm thinking of.

And if you don't recall who Wayne Boring drew,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5-BkmvHfvA

There is a more specific video about Wayne Boring's art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY7_QAFD9pA

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 8:15:53 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> There is a more specific video about Wayne Boring's art:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY7_QAFD9pA

Actually, it's just about all the comics published in a particular month, and it
shows one comic with his early art where he is ghosting for another artist and
following that artist's style.

Here is a more representative sampling of his work:

http://dccomicsartists.com/superart/wayneboring.htm

John Savard

[Dave Garland]

Let's not get carried away, now.

[Dave Garland]

On 1/15/2020 1:27 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-01-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> And capping the state population would require repealing the Fourteenth
>> Amendment, along with other equally impossible things. Places like China
>> can try a one-child policy.
>
> Yes, there were some unintended consequences there. Still, it would be
> better if we could find some way to slow population growth before Mother
> Nature does it for us.
>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
>

With economic development, improved status for women, and easy/cheap
access to birth control, I suspect most women will be happy to oblige.